In most organisations, HR managers and line managers work together to implement systems and
processes that will enable staff to work productively and contribute to organisational performance.
High-performance work systems (HPWS) are just one example of a planned, coherent system for
accomplishing this, but, as such, they provide an excellent means of exploring the implications of such
systems for organisational design and the division of HR manager and line manager responsibilities.
This Key Concept Exercise asks you to consider these larger questions of roles/responsibilities and design
in the context of HPWS.
*Reflect on what you have read about organisation design, HR and line manager roles and responsibilities
and high-performance work systems (HPWS). Consider the implications of implementing HPWS for HR
leaders, line managers and the organisationâs design.
In an approximately 500-word response, complete the following:
*Critically analyse the notion of high-performance work systems, including the important aspects of such
systems, their potential value for an organisation and how they might be implemented. Use examples fram
organisations you know well as appropriate.
«In formulating your Key Concept Exercise, consider the following questions:
¢What aspects of high-performance work systems, in your view, are most likely to contribute to employee
performance and business performance?
«What aspects of organisational design might have to be changed in order to implement a high-
performance work system?
eln the organisations with which you have experience and which do not already use the HPWS approach,
who would be responsible for implementing these changes? How could line managers and HR managers
work together to implement a high-performance work system, or aspects of one?
Sample Solution
Freedom of expression is also regulated by Article 20(2)[62] of the ICCPR which forbids specific types of hate expression. In addition, âany advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by lawâ.[63] It seems that Article 20 is working with Article 19 towards collaborating with the States to balance by law which eliminates criminalising.[64] As a result, it can be argued that Article 20(2) does not violate freedom of expression in a liberal democratic society but regulates this freedom positively. This is bolstered by the Human Rights Committee in its Draft General Comment No 34 (2011) which supports t High performance work systems he compatibility between Articles 20 and 19 of the ICCPR and sets permissible restrictions on the right of free speech.[65] Hence, the Human Rights Committee re-affirmed that Article 20 provides convenient sanctions in cases of a breach so it will not interpret provisions to impose criminal sanctions in advance.[66] The case of Ross[67] clarified the overlapping characteristics of Articles 20 and 19 in which the Human Rights Committee stressed the need for consistent interpretations of the Covenant.[68] In this case, the Committee justified limiting the authorâs rights to freedom of expression and religion, based on Article 19(3). As a result, Article 20(2) did not violate any rights of expression due to: first, the prohibition of the act stated in the law; second, a legitimate purpose was clear; third, the necessity to achieve its stated purpose.[69] Moreover, there was a violation in a subsection of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act due to the authorâs expressions being considered as discriminatory and âpoisoning the communityâ.[70] Clearly in this case the State Party prevented the author from expressing himself which undermined liberal democratic values.[71] Furthermore, the Suprem High performance work systems e Court decided not to allow the author to practise his religion while being a teacher which seems to be a denial of the freedom and right recognised by the Covenant.[72] Hence, the authorâs right of free expression was restricted and held as a sufficient detriment for losing a teaching position as this job carried specific duties.[73] However, as teaching young students carries special duties which if misconducted might harm the pupils, it was proportionate to restrict the authorâs rights.[74] This is strengthened by Millâs point of view that instigation is a form of harming others, which is a legitimate justification for restricting free speech as occurred in this case.[75] Based on the harm principle introduced by Mill, freedom of speech should not lead to discrimination and harm to any members of society. If this could be avoided, it would lead to a flouri>
Freedom of expression is also regulated by Article 20(2)[62] of the ICCPR which forbids specific types of hate expression. In addition, âany advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by lawâ.[63] It seems that Article 20 is working with Article 19 towards collaborating with the States to balance by law which eliminates criminalising.[64] As a result, it can be argued that Article 20(2) does not violate freedom of expression in a liberal democratic society but regulates this freedom positively. This is bolstered by the Human Rights Committee in its Draft General Comment No 34 (2011) which supports the compatibility between Articles 20 and 19 of the ICCPR and sets permissible restrictions on the right of free speech.[65] Hence, the Human Rights Committee re-affirmed that Article 20 provides convenient sanctions in ca High performance work systems ses of a breach so it will not interpret provisions to impose criminal sanctions in advance.[66] The case of Ross[67] clarified the overlapping characteristics of Articles 20 and 19 in which the Human Rights Committee stressed the need for consistent interpretations of the Covenant.[68] In this case, the Committee justified limiting the authorâs rights to freedom of expression and religion, based on Article 19(3). As a result, Article 20(2) did not violate any rights of expression due to: first, the prohibition of the act stated in the law; second, a legitimate purpose was clear; third, the necessity to achieve its stated purpose.[69] Moreover, there was a violation in a subsection of the New Brunswick Human Rights Act due to the authorâs expressions being considered as discriminatory and âpoisoning the communityâ.[70] Clearly in this case the State Party prevented the author from expressing himself which undermined liberal democratic values.[71] Furthermore, the Supreme Court decided not to allow the author to practise his religion while being a teacher which seems to be a denial of the freedom and right recognised by the Covenant.[72] Hence, the authorâs right of free expression was restricted and held as a sufficient detriment for losing a teaching position as this job ca High performance work systems rried specific duties.[73] However, as teaching young students carries special duties which if misconducted might harm the pupils, it was proportionate to restrict the authorâs rights.[74] This is strengthened by Millâs point of view that instigation is a form of harming others, which is a legitimate justification for restricting free speech as occurred in this case.[75] Based on the harm principle introduced by Mill, freedom of speech should not lead to discrimination and harm to any members of society. If this could be avoided, it would lead to a flouri>
